If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Haha look at the trolls trying to get people into trouble. If you just came from windows and use Ubuntu do yourself a favor and don't try either Arch or Slackware. You will think the linux world is shit and will run away. Don't listen to these people.

the last two people to I which install ubuntu, they asked me to remove ubuntu, because it is not user friendly and so slow on their computers(compiz), they was windows xp users, finally I installed chakra linux with kde on their pc, and they sill use chakra after one year, without problems .

Most of the things you attribute to malice in these cases look like good old fashioned incompetence. The changed their model and adapted as time went on. Back in 2004 they thought some things would work in their favor and didn't. They changed their mind. Of course they try more combinations to monetize Ubuntu. What would you have done in their place. They are desperate to turn a profit. They reinvent the wheel because they have specific needs and want more control over the development. They don't contribute upstream because it takes manpower to do that. Remember they still don't make a profit. Would it seem sane to throw more money in things that aren't likely to increase the bottom line?

First, you don't know if it was just incompetence. but even if so - Canonical is just as incompetent as they were before, this isn't a question of 2004 - i also listed 2011-13 issues. nothing's changed, it's actually gotten worse with them... RedHat turns a sizable profit just fine, while contributing heavily to many projects (because their business model isn't built on buzzwords and BS). And quite frankly, with the level of incompetence and desperation, as you say that Canonical has as a company - why in the hell would i want anything to do with them??

why don't you lay out the exact same argument regarding incompetence, desperation, etc - but instead of applying to Ubuntu/Canonical you apply it the car manufacturer whom's vehicle you may be potentially buying ~ does 'desperation' sound appealing??? how about incompetence?? - would you feel safe in that vehicle?? (no!).

they don't have specific needs, really, not deal breakers anyway. this is about control.

Originally Posted by BO$$

Didn't they popularize the 6 months release schedule? I am asking not being ironic.

nope. In fact, if i remember correctly, they essentially switched to 6month cycle to match gnome2 releases. ( i can't remember the guy's name off-hand, but he was apart of the Gnome camp and was working for Canonical, at the time). Other linux distros had used the 6month cycle, before ubuntu existed.

Originally Posted by BO$$

Well Unity from the netbook edition was before GS. Don't know maybe GS was first with the idea but took them longer to actually release?

UNR and Unity are not the same codebase, at all. Official release date means jacksh*t - I ran what became Gnome-Shell on my H/W before unity even had a single commit. (like many other people who were also checking out, what was at the time - Gnome's next generation Shell). It's also funny how you are so daft, you can't even tell the difference in scope between developing a Gnome DE vs. Unity; Unity is a fscking plugin for compiz with some other bits, here and there, slapped on top of Gnome2 in it's original release.. Unity right now (not 'next') is the same stuff, but built on Gnome 3 DE...

So i am curious - which do you really think takes longer? -> developing a few odds and ends for a pre-existing desktop (gnome2 + compiz) vs. Developing an entire new desktop (which entails everything from WM, compositor, a slerw of applications, etc). If you can sit here with a straight face and say Ubuntu/Canonical slapping a few components on top of Gnome is somehow much more work - all i can do is laugh at you - you have ZERO concept of the work that goes into this kind of thing.

Originally Posted by BO$$

Wayland has been in development for many years now and they still have major issues. I understand Canonical not wanting to have anything to do with them. They look really amateurish. They don't have a minimize button for christ.

Canonical is only able to build Mir because of years of work and participation of Wayland devs, kernel devs, etc - to which Canonical said they were going to contribute/support and did almost no contributions to :\ ~ frankly, you've got this ASS-BACkWARDS. Canonical are amateurs who are good at throwing arounf buzzwords / marketing but contribute very little to actual software, particularly, anything that's actually hard to do

Originally Posted by BO$$

RHEL vs Ubuntu I am not getting what you're trying to say. RHEL costs money and Ubuntu is free from what I know.

and this is one of the problems - you don't know sh*t - yet page after page of these silly ubuntu fanboy rants :\ here have a look, since apparently, with all your Ubuntu/Canonical fanboyness, you've never even botherede to visit their website; http://www.canonical.com/enterprise-...untu-advantage

What i was saying is that Mark Shuttleworth was trying to make it look like Ubuntu was a bigger deal in the industry, compared to RHEL - the part that he left out; he was including ALL ubuntu stats against RHEL - which is silly, since one is purely enterprise, while the other is free and has some undisclosed amount of companies paying for support. This essentially means Mark has painted a bogus picture by including all ubuntu stats, rather than comparing just the enterprise stuff - note: many IT professionals won't even purchase services from RedHat or Canonical, if they are capable of taking care of their servers/workstations themselves. - so mark's numbers are conflated junk.

Originally Posted by BO$$

I don't get how they are not heavy contributors. Hell they created a new interface called Unity. They employ a lot of people that work on open source software. They try to integrate all of that into a distro for the masses. Ok not everything goes upstream but that is because of lack of manpower. They are not Red Hat you know, not in terms of profits or number of employees....

"hell they created Unity"??!?!?! ROFL... Unity is not some amazing feat, dude and it's not a freedesktop standard, either - they've 'contributed' to themselves here, not the larger community, which isn't surprising. - You seem quite delusional as to the complexity of Unity vs. other software... it's not some crazy engineering feat and it's not a big contribution to anyone but themselves... and i have no problem with them trying to be "a distro for the masses" - that's just great - but then in turn, don't sh*t on other developers, projects, companies, etc that do circles around you (canonical) in terms of what they contribute. (which is typically what Mark Shutteworth and Canonical like to do - talk sh*t, spread FUD, etc). They employ some people that work on open source, sure. but not as broad and equally significant of contributions, as you think.... sorry, random user on launchpad contributing a patch, that ends up being upstream'd isn't a Canonical employee contribution.

BTW, thanks for pointing out the obvious; you are correct, Canonical is no RedHat. ~ at least, you recognize that

No single country has the ability to shut down all root DNS servers, because there are a lot of them: http://www.root-servers.org/ Most big providers are headquartered in the US, yes, but their actual servers are not in the US. So if there are laws that forbid DNS servers from running in the US, it still won't stop all of the rest. ICANN and co. would be just silly to not continue operating outside the US, because they would otherwise be out of business. And if they were somehow forced out of business, we still have NetNod, RIPE NCC etc. who would jump at the opportunity to take over the vacant niche. So no, no individual country can shut down the root DNS servers, and thus the internet.

Now, ICANN haz RIPE cheezburger?

Agreed, mostly.

Shutting down domain names doesn't imply an internet blackout, domains are simply aliases. All previously crawled web content would be easily accessible, you only need to know the IP address of your favourite search engine. I think P2P networks like bittorrent would not even notice the change (implying trackers are reached via IP addresses). Perhaps email would be a bit harder to work around.

And yet they are number one linux distro. Fascinating isn't it? Maybe they don't suck that much hmmm?? Sure they're not perfect but...

I hate to point out something PAINFULLY obvious, to almost anyone with half a brain; popularity is not mutually exclusive to quality. - and if that is how you measure this kind thing (which by your own admission, apparently you do) - then i guess you are one of these folk's who would jump of a cliff (to your death) just because everyone else was. You also avoided my question and it does not change the fact (nor did you even dispute!), that Canonical is desperate and incompetent.

It's great to see that popularity is the driving factor in your thought process. I assume you only value top40 music, as well?

Originally Posted by BO$$

Don't know. It also depends on how many people are working on it don't you think? And for the record I consider the whole gnome shell just an a programming exercise for people with nothing better to do. Gnome 2 was good enough. No need to throw everything out and 'revolutionize' the desktop.

I already know, that you don't have a fscking clue about what is involved, you've already made that VERY clear. Gnome-Shell is just a shell - like Unity... GS is a small part of the Gnome stack. And they didn't 'throw everything out', my desktop barely changed between gnome2 to gnome3 upgrade. - I just had to reconfigure a few things and not use GS...and wtf are you even talking about- Unity is just as dramatic of a change as GS. (people just have different tastes). Gnome 2 was good for a time, but it was also quite dated... Frankly, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Gnome is a complete software stack, Unity is NOT - it is a shell, for a customized version of Gnome..

i don't think that you are qualified to call any DE a "programming exercise" based on your previous comments about Unity being some huge contribution to open source, and it's development pace vs. Gnome 3... you're laughable dude. no clue at all. just a fanboy grasping at straws..

Originally Posted by BO$$

Yes they do. Right now no DE on linux is actually ready for the masses. Unity is the closest there is. KDE would be the most familiar to windows users but it has its problems.

If these are the 'specifics' that you have come up with, please just SFTU. you're not doing yourself any favors here, nor have you made a single compelling argument. Unity is the closest - says who? YOU <- right? So now, i am to take your personal opinion as being factual in nature??!?! ROFL..lolololololol You know that Unity has had plenty of bad reviews by many people and that an ubuntu derivative became #1 on distrowatch (and still is) in part because the Default Ubuntu experience (ie: Unity) isn't as popular as you think, it is. (ie: alternate DEs are quite popular in Ubuntu). It would seem to me, that if Unity is the closest, than by that logic - Ubuntu's default GUI should be far more popular - hell, by now shouldn't Unity be in every distro then?

Originally Posted by BO$$

They're bad at talking with the community. That doesn't mean that the product is shit.

...and/or they are desperate for money and make bad decisions, which is analogous to a car manufacturer 'cutting corners' and making an inferior, shite or even dangerous product. I'm sorry, that you weren't capable of understanding my simple analogy - but it quite apt and still stands...

Originally Posted by BO$$

I don't care about how hard it was to make but how useful it was to people. There are a lot of projects that contain some hardcore code that no one uses. I don't care about the LOC or any other metric except what the masses think about it. That is the purpose of Ubuntu. Linux for the masses. If I could write 10 LOC and cure cancer it would be pretty cool don't you think?

Completely fallacious.. Now you are changing the scope/direction of my reply and not addressing it (in a very disingenuous way, to boot. probably because you're too much of a pussy to just admit your mistake) - My point was challenging your position that Unity was some big contribution (which it's not). It's not nearly as big as you thought, it's not a freedesktop standard and only really serves Ubuntu/Canonical's interests... You were wrong, end of story. ...hardcore code that no one uses?!? - you mean like the majority of software that Ubuntu is built on that they don't contribute to, right? lol... I wasn't talking about obscure code that no one uses, dummy.

....and if the only metric you care about is what other people think about something - you're pathetic. Those other metrics ALL matter, to some degree or another...and being as you are ignorant on everything except 'what the masses, think' (well, your interpretation of that, anyway.), your uninformed (and ill-formed) opinions mean absolutely fsck all... I hate to have to explain this to you, but you are 1 person NOT the entire planet, pal. - thus, you do not speak for all of them, you just claim to...

Most people don't want to spend a month learning about how to setup arch. Just because you did it and survived doesn't mean you should force others to do it. For most people Ubuntu is the easiest trasition from Windows or Mac. Please understand that people really don't give a shit about how the system functions underneath or anything about how to configure it. Really these people are the majority. Arch, Gentoo and Slackware are impossible to use by the normal user.

Ubuntu users: always wanting to be forced into something even when none is talking about forcing anyone. My only recommendation regarding distro choice is not being sheepish and making informed decisions preferably based on experimentation. Tell me, how many distros did you tested yourself before getting into Ubuntu?

By the way, don't giving a shit about your system actually makes everything harder. We at Arch think that less means more and the reverse is also true when it comes to simplicity, involvement and newbie friendliness. Relying on graphical tools and bloat whose only purpose is to hide inherent complexity effectively increases complexity. And that's exactly what I witness with the vast majority of college mates running Ubuntu (just as average Windows and Mac users). They struggle to make Ubuntu do the limited things they can imagine, even minimal ones like modifying files outside their home folder, and often come to me when Ubuntu fails to install drivers for their Wi-Fi cards and stuff. All these bells and whistles are just because they don't give a damn about UNIX and FOSS.

Ignorance leads to problems, problems you won't be able to solve unless you leave mediocrity.

Ubuntu users: always wanting to be forced into something even when none is talking about forcing anyone. My only recommendation regarding distro choice is not being sheepish and making informed decisions preferably based on experimentation. Tell me, how many distros did you tested yourself before getting into Ubuntu?

By the way, don't giving a shit about your system actually makes everything harder. We at Arch think that less means more and the reverse is also true when it comes to simplicity, involvement and newbie friendliness. Relying on graphical tools and bloat whose only purpose is to hide inherent complexity effectively increases complexity. And that's exactly what I witness with the vast majority of college mates running Ubuntu (just as average Windows and Mac users). They struggle to make Ubuntu do the limited things they can imagine, even minimal ones like modifying files outside their home folder, and often come to me when Ubuntu fails to install drivers for their Wi-Fi cards and stuff. All these bells and whistles are just because they don't give a damn about UNIX and FOSS.

Ignorance leads to problems, problems you won't be able to solve unless you leave mediocrity.

Obscurity? Let's not change our SSH ports so that our SSH servers get bruteforced by bots!

Funny wording, but futile security measure. Port analysis is so fast and easy that you could identify the new port and start bruteforcing it in less than it takes to make the chage from one port to another. And brute force atacks are nothing but fairy tales when you have strong passwords. Go find a supercomputer farm that can work for one or two million years till the password is decrypted, or till SSH freaks out after a number of failed trials.

Originally Posted by Calinou

Bloat? Is it too hard to use "sudo apt-get remove" and "sudo apt-get install"?

apt-get remove what? apt-get remove $EVERY_SINGLE_PACKAGE_I_DONT_LIKE ??? $PACKAGES_I_AM_NOT_AWARE_OF ???
Why installing stuff you don't like and then removing it when you can choose not to install them at all from the beginning and building a nice tailored environment.

Originally Posted by Calinou

Easy to install? I've been using Ubuntu then Xubuntu for 3.5 years or so (and never had any issues), I can't even install Arch... Also, I can install a *buntu in less than 30 minutes. Life's too short to spend hours on an OS install.

Have you read the Arch's beginners guide?
I've been using Arch for 4.5 years (and never had any issues). I can also install *buntu in less than 30 minutes, but cannot bear to use it on a daily basis. Life's too short to waste ENTIRE YEARS using an OS I don't feel comfortable with.

I would love to do that. Sadly, it isn't as straightforward as installing and using a minimal and customizable GNU/Linux distribution. In fact, the gap between coding in assembly language and plain machine code is not that big once you are used to an specific instruction set. The assembler simply substitutes mnemonic labels and numbers with their corresponding binary codes.

If you wanna go the extremist way, I will start writing my own OS in assembly (or even lowest level machine code) as soon as you quit exercising any kind of personalisation on your computer. No changing wallpaper, no rearranging icons, no making folders, no installs/uninstalls, etc...

I've read your philosophy on the arch site. And then I read the installation instructions and realized nobody coming from windows will follow them. In fact I am absolutely sure that you need to be isolated from the newbie windows user and they shouldn't know that you exist. Why? So they don't run screaming back to windows. Your theories do a big disservice to the people that try to get in the linux world. Luckly the statistics show that most people run into Ubuntu well before they run into Arch so for now we're safe from your delusions.

Arch isn't a newbie friendly distro, but there are plenty besides Ubuntu. I happen to think OpenSuse, for example, is easier for someone from windows to use than Ubuntu. And nobody would have any more trouble on Fedora, or several other possibilities.

On another note - wow. I can't believe all you guys have been trolling each other for 13 pages of comments now. I feel like i've wasted a ton of time just skimming through a few of them. Do you guys really have nothing better to do?